Gun nuts intimidate mothers in parking lot

[Pogo]

No force or threat was used, the weapons were not brandished, which implies showing in a threatening manner. no weapon was aimed at a person.

The only powder keg created was in the wussy minds of people like you, who are scared of your fellow citizens, unless of course they are dressed as government actors, then you can't wait to get on your knees and start slurping to thier "authority"

Bed wetters, all of you. Kindly go into your home, cower in the corner and stay there so the rest of us dont have to deal with your incessant mewling.

We're at that summit called Rehash Point -- we already spelled out the meaning of "brandish" (which is why I deliberately use it); you can search it if you like. As for the motivation for this thread, it's not about anybody's emotions, it's about the nutgroup's intent. And as already spelled out, if the intent was not intimidation, then there's no reason for them to show up. Case closed.

The reason is to show that normal citizens can be armed with semi-automatic weapons, carry them in public, and GASP!!! no one gets shot.

-- luckily. But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, which is what they're actually doing there, hello)... and two, if your point is a visual demonstration as you suggest, that makes these guns props. OK that's one level, but these "props" --- are loaded. Exactly who was going to be targeted?

Now why would you need loaded props, especially with children standing in front of you? Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded. And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... then why do you bring the children?

These are the questions that can't be reconciled. Ergo: nutgroup.

they were open carrying, which is perfectly legal. they were assembling to air grievences, which is perfectly legal. they did not threaten or confront anyone, in any way.

Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue. The threatening/confrontation is. Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right? Because that's not how the world works. And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message. A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". That's not intimidation? BULLSHIT. It's the whole point.

They have offered to debate the group in a open forum, and have agreed to leave thier weapons behind during the debate.

That's what they should have done in the first place as I noted above. Thank you. Got a link btw?

Is the liberal desire for victimhood some strong that even the thought of an armed fellow citizen compels you to be whiny bitches about it?

Again you're off to psychobabble. That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done all of these arguments upthread. Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?

 

[martybegan]

no, because people would beat each other with swords and clubs, and the bigger stronger people would have NOTHING in thier way to stop them from imposing thier will on others.

guns keep the bad people away, and protect the weak people.

Your assumption is based on the fact that there is no social contract. People have morals. People have laws. Without firearms, even bad people would join groups.

Atomic bombs keep bad countries away and protect the weak countries.

and without atomic bombs we probably would have had far more conventional wars between superpowers due to the scope of said wars being more manageable.

If you remove firearms you remove the overwhelming force that governments currently have over the rest of the people, both thier own, and others seeking what they want. It is no suprise that the decline of the ravaging hordes such as the mongols happened with the widespread use of firearms. No longer was physical might and mobility the main controller of force and ruling.

Without firearms the biggest and strongest would rule, starting locally, and working its way up.

 

[martybegan]

We're at that summit called Rehash Point -- we already spelled out the meaning of "brandish" (which is why I deliberately use it); you can search it if you like. As for the motivation for this thread, it's not about anybody's emotions, it's about the nutgroup's intent. And as already spelled out, if the intent was not intimidation, then there's no reason for them to show up. Case closed.

The reason is to show that normal citizens can be armed with semi-automatic weapons, carry them in public, and GASP!!! no one gets shot.

-- luckily. But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, which is what they're actually doing there, hello)... and two, these guns, which by this theory are props --- are loaded.


Now again, why would you need loaded props, especially with children standing in front of you? Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded. And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... then why do you bring the children?

Ergo: nutgroup.



Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue. The threatening/confrontation is. Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right? Because that's not how the world works. And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message. A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". That's not intimidation? BULLSHIT. It's the whole point.

They have offered to debate the group in a open forum, and have agreed to leave thier weapons behind during the debate.

That's what they should have done in the first place. Got a link btw?

Is the liberal desire for victimhood some strong that even the thought of an armed fellow citizen compels you to be whiny bitches about it?

Again you're off to psychobabble. That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done all of these arguments upthread. Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?

luck had nothing to do with responsible people carrying firearms responsibly. you keep going with the mantra that firearms are just death and destruction waiting to happen.

So you assume that every cop you pass by open carrying is going to blow your head away?

paranoid idiot.

“The president of Open Carry Texas, CJ Grisham, is issuing an open invite and challenge to MDA President Shannon Watts to debate the issue of ‘gun sense’ (gun control) versus gun rights (supporting the Constitution). Since we are issuing the challenge, Shannon may pick anywhere in the State of Texas to hold the event and OCT will pay for the venue.

“We will also accept the Texas Chapter President of MDA if Shannon doesn’t feel intelligent or confident enough to handle an open debate. OCT will NOT be open carry at the event so MDA can feel safe and secure in its ignorance and false sense of safety. Shannon may email her response CJ directly from her official email to [email protected]. The ball is in your court,” the group wrote

Open Carry Advocates Stand Outside Moms Against Gun Violence Meeting: Tell Us if You Think They Went Too Far | TheBlaze.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I think that's bullshit. You watch too much Fox Noise.

Let's see, that was around the same time... what was the pattern they were doing to make news stories out of nothing...

"New Black Panthers"... Henry Louis Gates... Shirley Sherrod... ACORN... Jeremiah Wright... Van Jones... nope, no pattern there, sure don't see one.

The Constitution doesn't need "support" -- it passed two centuries ago. What are the guns for? And why are they loaded?

So to be straight on this, you support armed intimidation of voters at the polls, as long as those intimidated are white?

Nothing changes with democrats, just the color of your victims.

 

[koshergrl]

We're at that summit called Rehash Point -- we already spelled out the meaning of "brandish" (which is why I deliberately use it); you can search it if you like. As for the motivation for this thread, it's not about anybody's emotions, it's about the nutgroup's intent. And as already spelled out, if the intent was not intimidation, then there's no reason for them to show up. Case closed.

The reason is to show that normal citizens can be armed with semi-automatic weapons, carry them in public, and GASP!!! no one gets shot.

-- luckily. But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, which is what they're actually doing there, hello)... and two, if your point is a visual demonstration as you suggest, that makes these guns props. OK that's one level, but these "props" --- are loaded. Exactly who was going to be targeted?

Now why would you need loaded props, especially with children standing in front of you? Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded. And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... then why do you bring the children?

These are the questions that can't be reconciled. Ergo: nutgroup.



Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue. The threatening/confrontation is. Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right? Because that's not how the world works. And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message. A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". That's not intimidation? BULLSHIT. It's the whole point.

They have offered to debate the group in a open forum, and have agreed to leave thier weapons behind during the debate.

That's what they should have done in the first place as I noted above. Thank you. Got a link btw?

Is the liberal desire for victimhood some strong that even the thought of an armed fellow citizen compels you to be whiny bitches about it?

Again you're off to psychobabble. That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done all of these arguments upthread. Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?

What ridiculous claptrap you spout. You are the one who rehashes the same tired and nonsensical arguments. Your retarded "prop" garbage is just that. It is completely irrelevant to this conversation. Please continue with that idiotic mantra inside your own head, only, and stop boring the rest of us with it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

People with guns kill people.

As do people with knives, clubs, cars, and as Britney Murphy found out, rat poison....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We're at that summit called Rehash Point -- we already spelled out the meaning of "brandish" (which is why I deliberately use it); you can search it if you like. As for the motivation for this thread, it's not about anybody's emotions, it's about the nutgroup's intent. And as already spelled out, if the intent was not intimidation, then there's no reason for them to show up. Case closed.

The reason is to show that normal citizens can be armed with semi-automatic weapons, carry them in public, and GASP!!! no one gets shot.

-- luckily. But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, which is what they're actually doing there, hello)... and two, if your point is a visual demonstration as you suggest, that makes these guns props. OK that's one level, but these "props" --- are loaded. Exactly who was going to be targeted?

Now why would you need loaded props, especially with children standing in front of you? Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded. And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... then why do you bring the children?

These are the questions that can't be reconciled. Ergo: nutgroup.



Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue. The threatening/confrontation is. Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right? Because that's not how the world works. And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message. A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". That's not intimidation? BULLSHIT. It's the whole point.

They have offered to debate the group in a open forum, and have agreed to leave thier weapons behind during the debate.

That's what they should have done in the first place as I noted above. Thank you. Got a link btw?

Is the liberal desire for victimhood some strong that even the thought of an armed fellow citizen compels you to be whiny bitches about it?

Again you're off to psychobabble. That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done all of these arguments upthread. Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?

Damn you really are hooked on the Kool-Aid!

These people with the guns stayed for about ten minutes took a picture then left. There were not close to the restaurant.

Police officers arrived at the location, but made no arrests. “There were no issues that we are aware of,” said an Arlington Police Department spokeswoman, Tiara Ellis Richard. “Texas law does not prohibit the carrying of long guns.”

You have no idea if the weapons were in fact loaded, although I would assume they would be since an unloaded gun is nothing but a club at that point.

The fact of this story is that the women were terrified that “They’re walking around with killing machines strapped to their backs in a suburban area,”.

 

[Spoonman]

Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights. they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do. if that intimidates you, thats your problem. but stop whining about it.

 

[Pogo]

The reason is to show that normal citizens can be armed with semi-automatic weapons, carry them in public, and GASP!!! no one gets shot.

-- luckily. But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, which is what they're actually doing there, hello)... and two, these guns, which by this theory are props --- are loaded.


Now again, why would you need loaded props, especially with children standing in front of you? Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded. And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... then why do you bring the children?

Ergo: nutgroup.



Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue. The threatening/confrontation is. Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right? Because that's not how the world works. And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message. A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". That's not intimidation? BULLSHIT. It's the whole point.



That's what they should have done in the first place. Got a link btw?



Again you're off to psychobabble. That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done all of these arguments upthread. Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?

luck had nothing to do with responsible people carrying firearms responsibly. you keep going with the mantra that firearms are just death and destruction waiting to happen.

Yeah actually it does once you consider that their presence as they manifested it was entirely elective; they didn't have to go do that. That's where your word "responsible" morphs to "reprehensible". Loaded props..with children.

So you assume that every cop you pass by open carrying is going to blow your head away?

I wouldn't put it quite that drama queen, but I've had some experiences yes. Matter of fact the only time I've had guns pulled on me was by cops -- and if I had been following this murmuring mantra of "packing for protection" I would have been lying dead in the street. Unless I happened to kill both of them, and either way that would be an event that didn't need happening. That's one reason I continue to ridicule the cockamamie idea that the answer go guns is more guns. Like saying the answer to a fire is to pour gasoline on it.

paranoid idiot.

Glad to meet ya. I'm Pogo. Say weren't you going to kill me in a fire?

“The president of Open Carry Texas, CJ Grisham, is issuing an open invite and challenge to MDA President Shannon Watts to debate the issue of ‘gun sense’ (gun control) versus gun rights (supporting the Constitution). Since we are issuing the challenge, Shannon may pick anywhere in the State of Texas to hold the event and OCT will pay for the venue.

“We will also accept the Texas Chapter President of MDA if Shannon doesn’t feel intelligent or confident enough to handle an open debate. OCT will NOT be open carry at the event so MDA can feel safe and secure in its ignorance and false sense of safety. Shannon may email her response CJ directly from her official email to [email protected]. The ball is in your court,” the group wrote

Open Carry Advocates Stand Outside Moms Against Gun Violence Meeting: Tell Us if You Think They Went Too Far | TheBlaze.com

Why couldn't they just do that in the first place? Meet one's adversary on the same level rather than standing outside the building intimidating and polarizing?

I mean..... duh.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Since I've had my concealed handgun license I've been pulled over several times for minor traffic violations, mostly speeding ( I got a lead foot) and the officer would ask if I was carrying I would always answer with an affirmative and not once did they ask to see the weapon or if the weapon was loaded or what my plans were. Since acquiring my CHL I haven't received not one single traffic ticket, only warnings some written others verbal.

 

[007]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/u...escalating-battle-over-texas-gun-culture.html

Hey Piddly Bedatnight, why don't you turn your rep back on so we can see what people here really think of the pathetic leftard garbage you post, you fucking PUSSY.

 

[peach174]

People with guns kill people.

No they don't.
Law abiding people use their guns to stop people who do kill with guns.
The idea is that you use your gun to stop the killer or thief without killing them.
Law abiding citizens do not want to kill anyone, but will if it becomes absolutely necessary, it's the last resort though, if you think it comes down to your life or the law breakers life.

 

[Pogo]

No, I think that's bullshit. You watch too much Fox Noise.

Let's see, that was around the same time... what was the pattern they were doing to make news stories out of nothing...

"New Black Panthers"... Henry Louis Gates... Shirley Sherrod... ACORN... Jeremiah Wright... Van Jones... nope, no pattern there, sure don't see one.

The Constitution doesn't need "support" -- it passed two centuries ago. What are the guns for? And why are they loaded?

So to be straight on this, you support armed intimidation of voters at the polls, as long as those intimidated are white?

Nothing changes with democrats, just the color of your victims.

To be straight on this I don't believe any such thing happened. Fox Noise Fables.

And stop pretending I'm a "Democrat", Pothead. Ain't nobody buying except the illiterate.

 

[Pogo]

Since I've had my concealed handgun license I've been pulled over several times for minor traffic violations, mostly speeding ( I got a lead foot) and the officer would ask if I was carrying I would always answer with an affirmative and not once did they ask to see the weapon or if the weapon was loaded or what my plans were. Since acquiring my CHL I haven't received not one single traffic ticket, only warnings some written others verbal.

What's your point?

 

[Pogo]

The reason is to show that normal citizens can be armed with semi-automatic weapons, carry them in public, and GASP!!! no one gets shot.

-- luckily. But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, which is what they're actually doing there, hello)... and two, if your point is a visual demonstration as you suggest, that makes these guns props. OK that's one level, but these "props" --- are loaded. Exactly who was going to be targeted?

Now why would you need loaded props, especially with children standing in front of you? Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded. And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... then why do you bring the children?

These are the questions that can't be reconciled. Ergo: nutgroup.



Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue. The threatening/confrontation is. Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right? Because that's not how the world works. And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message. A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". That's not intimidation? BULLSHIT. It's the whole point.



That's what they should have done in the first place as I noted above. Thank you. Got a link btw?



Again you're off to psychobabble. That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done all of these arguments upthread. Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?

Damn you really are hooked on the Kool-Aid!

These people with the guns stayed for about ten minutes took a picture then left. There were not close to the restaurant.

Police officers arrived at the location, but made no arrests. “There were no issues that we are aware of,” said an Arlington Police Department spokeswoman, Tiara Ellis Richard. “Texas law does not prohibit the carrying of long guns.”

You have no idea if the weapons were in fact loaded, although I would assume they would be since an unloaded gun is nothing but a club at that point.

The fact of this story is that the women were terrified that “They’re walking around with killing machines strapped to their backs in a suburban area,”.

Uh-- yeah, we do. We all know that. OCT people said it themselves in the video. That's established in the first TWO SECONDS in the conversation with the police officer. Hellllooooo....

And why would you need a "club" (or a gun) if your purpose is a demonstration?
Think about it -- you're suggesting the purpose is peaceful and lawful, and at the same time you want them armed with either firepower or "clubs". WTF dood? Can't have it both ways.

 

[Pogo]

Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights. they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do. if that intimidates you, thats your problem. but stop whining about it.

Sure. That's why I keep saying, they could have brought signs instead of something deadly. Or, and I think this is a better idea, just show up as normal people, go in the restaurant and sit down with the four women to join the discussion. Actually according to Marty's link that's what they're going for now. Should have thought of that before. Because all they've done is dug the hole of the gun-nut image deeper. They did their own cause a disservice, and now they're backtracking.

Nothing wrong with demonstration. It's American. Intimidation is another level. You don't change or retain a Constitution by threat of force; you do it through dialogue. That's (supposed to be) American too.

 

[koshergrl]

-- luckily. But there are two (main) reasons that theory doesn't work: one, you can make the same point with signs, or how about this, by meeting the women in the restaurant and inviting yourself into the discussion, which is what they're actually doing there, hello)... and two, these guns, which by this theory are props --- are loaded.


Now again, why would you need loaded props, especially with children standing in front of you? Your visual effect gains nothing from being loaded or unloaded. And inevitably you come to this: if you've got them loaded because you're anticipating having to use them... then why do you bring the children?

Ergo: nutgroup.



Legality is beyond the scope of this thread, and that's not at issue. The threatening/confrontation is. Surely they were all wearing white hats like in the movies so any passerby can tell they're the "good guys", right? Because that's not how the world works. And again, had they come out demonstrating with signs, you get a completely different message. A sign says "this is my position and I care enough about it to demonstrate". A gun says "I can blow your head off right now". That's not intimidation? BULLSHIT. It's the whole point.



That's what they should have done in the first place. Got a link btw?



Again you're off to psychobabble. That's fine, it is about psychology, but that of the perpetrators, not the recipients.

Marty, we've done all of these arguments upthread. Why are we rehashing them with nothing new?

luck had nothing to do with responsible people carrying firearms responsibly. you keep going with the mantra that firearms are just death and destruction waiting to happen.

Yeah actually it does once you consider that their presence as they manifested it was entirely elective; they didn't have to go do that. That's where your word "responsible" morphs to "reprehensible". Loaded props..with children.



I wouldn't put it quite that drama queen, but I've had some experiences yes. Matter of fact the only time I've had guns pulled on me was by cops -- and if I had been following this murmuring mantra of "packing for protection" I would have been lying dead in the street. Unless I happened to kill both of them, and either way that would be an event that didn't need happening. That's one reason I continue to ridicule the cockamamie idea that the answer go guns is more guns. Like saying the answer to a fire is to pour gasoline on it.



Glad to meet ya. I'm Pogo. Say weren't you going to kill me in a fire?

“The president of Open Carry Texas, CJ Grisham, is issuing an open invite and challenge to MDA President Shannon Watts to debate the issue of ‘gun sense’ (gun control) versus gun rights (supporting the Constitution). Since we are issuing the challenge, Shannon may pick anywhere in the State of Texas to hold the event and OCT will pay for the venue.

“We will also accept the Texas Chapter President of MDA if Shannon doesn’t feel intelligent or confident enough to handle an open debate. OCT will NOT be open carry at the event so MDA can feel safe and secure in its ignorance and false sense of safety. Shannon may email her response CJ directly from her official email to [email protected]. The ball is in your court,” the group wrote

Open Carry Advocates Stand Outside Moms Against Gun Violence Meeting: Tell Us if You Think They Went Too Far | TheBlaze.com

Why couldn't they just do that in the first place? Meet one's adversary on the same level rather than standing outside the building intimidating and polarizing?

I mean..... duh.

They weren't intimidating.

And lobbying to remove constitutional rights from fellow Americans is a polarizing action. If you don't like confrontation, then don't try to remove the rights of others.

 

[Ernie S.]

Then maybe you shouldn't traffic in absolutes.

OK then. Suppose some child HAS been saved by a drunk driver. Could the same result been obtained if the driver was sober? Yes. Of course. Now How many unarmed citizens have shot and killed a would be child killer?

You see, in one case, the gun is relevant and in the other, the alcohol is not. Poor analogy.

I know. It wasn't my analogy, although I thought it superficially clever at first read, though wasn't to be taken seriously.

But then, that's not what I was posting on. Koshergrrrrr made a rash specious absolute statement, I called her on it, and she lost. Again.
You'd think she'd figure her own pattern out by now. You'd think.

Her pattern??? My God man! Your pattern is to prove that there is a 1% chance someone may be wrong and claim victory.
If I have a 5 gallon bucket of black paint and add one drop of white, the resulting mix is not gray. It's for all intents and purposes, black.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To be straight on this I don't believe any such thing happened. Fox Noise Fables.

ROFL

Yes, ignore the man behind the curtain, the Youtube videos are fake.

{Two members of the New Black Panther party, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, stood in front of the entrance to the polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary.[2][3][4] Minister King Shabazz carried a billy club, and is reported to have pointed it at voters while both men shouted racial slurs,[5] including phrases such as "white devil" and "you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."[6] }

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And stop pretending I'm a "Democrat", Pothead. Ain't nobody buying except the illiterate.

Whatever you are, you serve the party....

 

[martybegan]

Here's the deal, you want ot be out their protesting against someones rights you are going to have to expect people are going to protest back to protect those rights. they have the same rights to present their point of view as you do. if that intimidates you, thats your problem. but stop whining about it.

Sure. That's why I keep saying, they could have brought signs instead of something deadly. Or, and I think this is a better idea, just show up as normal people, go in the restaurant and sit down with the four women to join the discussion. Actually according to Marty's link that's what they're going for now. Should have thought of that before. Because all they've done is dug the hole of the gun-nut image deeper. They did their own cause a disservice, and now they're backtracking.

Nothing wrong with demonstration. It's American. Intimidation is another level. You don't change or retain a Constitution by threat of force; you do it through dialogue. That's (supposed to be) American too.

When the very right to own firearms is being threatened by these people under the guise that they are too dangerous for ANYONE to to own, then showing that it is not the case is the best form of protest.

And you see intimidation by the government at protests all the time by your logic, by the armed police that often surround them. But i guess thats OK because the government gets to have rights we have to give up according to you.

They are not backtracking, they plan on further demonstrations. Its also in Texas, where the gun rights people get more support then the nanny statists.